J&D Maintenance and Service, B-282249, June 18, 1999

B-282249 Jun 18, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that awardee failed to adequately address various subfactors under a particular evaluation factor is denied where record demonstrates reasonable basis for agency ratings of highly satisfactory or acceptable under each subfactor. 2. Even if proposal is unbalanced. It need not be rejected where agency determined that lack of balance did not pose unacceptable risk to the government and any unbalancing was immaterial since there was no basis for concern that the offer might not ultimately be low. (The definite-quantity line items are referred to in the record as firm fixed-price (FFP) items and so. For which prices were requested on a monthly basis. For which estimated quantities were furnished. View Decision Matter of: J&D Maintenance and Service File: B-282249 Date: June 18, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION J&D Maintenance and Service protests the award of a contract to S.D. Ashe Landscaping & Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N68931-98-R-0059, issued by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command for grounds maintenance services at three Navy bases in Florida. The protester contends that the Navy unreasonably found Ashe's proposal to be acceptable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP sought proposals to furnish all supervision, engineering services, labor, transportation, supplies, equipment, and materials to provide grounds maintenance services at the Naval Air Station (NAS), Jacksonville; NAS, Cecil Field; and Naval Station, Mayport. The solicitation contemplated the award of a contract combining definite-quantity line items and indefinite quantity line items for a base year and up to four 1-year option periods. (The definite-quantity line items are referred to in the record as firm fixed-price (FFP) items and so, for the sake of consistency with the record, we use that acronym here, although the indefinite-quantity line items also had fixed unit prices.) The FFP line items, for which prices were requested on a monthly basis, covered scheduled services, while the indefinite-quantity items, for which estimated quantities were furnished, covered unscheduled services. The RFP provided for award to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government, with the cumulative weight of technical factors equal to that of price. RFP Secs. M.3, M.4. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of four technical factors: methods and procedures, experience, past performance, and corporate resources and management. Under the methods and procedures factor, offerors were to address the following eight subfactors: full-time equivalency rationale; employee qualifications; tools, supplies and equipment; rationale--overhead personnel; indefinite quantity and FFP work plans; recurring work schedule; purchasing system; and quality control plan. To facilitate the agency's evaluation of the FFP portion of the proposals, offerors were required to complete a supplemental pricing form breaking down their direct and indirect costs and specifying their proposed full-time equivalents (FTE). Ten firms submitted proposals prior to the August 24, 1998 closing date. After initial evaluation, the technical evaluation board (TEB) rated the proposals of both J&D (the incumbent contractor) and Ashe highly satisfactory, and included them in the competitive range along with two other proposals that had received ratings of acceptable. After conducting discussions with the four offerors and receiving revised proposals, the TEB lowered its rating of Ashe's proposal from highly satisfactory to acceptable, /1/ [DELETED]. Memorandum from Chairman, TEB to Chairman, SEB, Nov. 16, 1998, at 1 and encl. 1, at 6. A second round of discussions was conducted, at the conclusion of which the technical ratings were not revised. Memorandum from Dec. 16, 1998, at 1. The TEB's final ranking of proposals, together with their prices, was as follows: Ranking Offeror Rating Price 1. J&D Highly Satisfactory $19,469,042.80 2. Offeror C Highly Satisfactory [DELETED] 3. Ashe Acceptable $18,282,268.32 4. Offeror D Acceptable [DELETED] Contracting Officer's Memorandum, Mar. 22, 1999, at 7. After reviewing the TEB's ratings, the source selection authority (SSA) determined, with the source selection board's (SSB) concurrence, that the downgrading of Ashe's overall technical rating from highly satisfactory to acceptable based on the TEB's understanding that Ashe [DELETED]unwarranted. Id. at 7-8. The SSA revised Ashe's overall rating to highly satisfactory and determined that the proposal was technically equivalent to J&D's. Id. at 8. The SSA further determined that Ashe's proposal, which was lower in price than J&D's, represented the best value to the government.